Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 16, 2015.

Melbourne City Wrestling[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. We still don't have an overwhelming consensus one way or another on the merits of keeping this redirect, but the discussion below showed a majority sentiment that it's too soon to start another RfD, especially as the nominator didn't present a new argument not presented at the last RfD. Deryck C. 12:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-submitting after no consensus was reached on the previous listing. Delete under R10. Redirects to lists with little if any useful information aren't encyclopaedic and WP:REDLINK applies as there is some notability through the presence of Emma and Buddy Murphy. Curse of Fenric (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • n.b. Previous discussion here. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I continue to doubt that this organization is notable on its own. The two wrestlers cited in the nomination would hardly be notable if they had never left this minor competition, and notability is not inherited, so their later success doesn't bestow notability. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural close - previous discussion closed with no consensus for any action, and I doubt that situation has changed in the two weeks since. No comment on the redirect; if you like you can read my comments at the previous thread. Ivanvector (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussion was distracted by another issue (partly my fault as well) so procedural close is not appropriate. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentKeep - when I looked into this before, I came to the tentative conclusion there wasn't enough info to make an article, so redlinking was inappropriate. If I was wrong ... well, the smart thing to do would be to make the article and render the question moot. If I was right, then it should be kept. Cycling around RfD again and again ain't wise. WilyD 08:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is similar to an RfD I saw earlier this morning when commenting on the June 13 nomination of Bill Cunningham. Naturally this is not political, but the same situation applies when it comes to redirects that only work if the subject is contained in a substantive way in the target article - which this is not. Redirects to lists that carry a name and virtually nothing else should be discouraged as unencyclopedic IMO. WP:NOT discourages directories, which this redirect contributes to. As an aside, the target article's notability is questionable but I shall leave that be. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No consensus. How many times does this need to be listed? Ivanvector (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably until we reach a consensus. Nothing wrong with that. Dragonfire X (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite right, Dragon. Ivan, instead of bailing how about we discuss this so we can reach a consensus instead of throwing it in the bin just like that for no good reason? Curse of Fenric (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The consensus is that there is no consensus, I'm with Ivanvector that far: but to draw a line in the sand, I say keep for now, it's at the target, but nothing stops anyone making it into an article if they feel like it, they can simply overwrite the redirect. The case for delete would be to encourage the creation of the article (presumably WP:RFD#D10) but nobody seems to be particularly encouraged so to do. Si Trew (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

XHFJ-FM[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this station changed its calls a long time ago to XHMIX-FM but the page move was never made.

The main reason to delete the redirect is because there is an XHFJ-FM 95.1 in Teziutlán, Puebla (see the IFT FM tables). Raymie (t • c) 21:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep is the Puebla station notable? If it isn't, it doesn't matter that it exists. This is valid because it is a former callsign (former name) ; If the Puebla station is notable, the you can stubbify the redirect into an article and add a hatnote. Otherwise, keep as is. Non-notable stations do not "confuse" since they do not belong on Wikipedia. Pointing former names of notable stations to their articles is the proper thing to do. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Until such time as the notability of that other station is established this needs to stay as is per the IP. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Robert Muise[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was do not delete, with no consensus on subsequent action. I'm procedurally closing this RfD without prejudice against further action, such as restoration and subsequent AfD or merge. Deryck C. 12:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neither informative nor logical. Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or turn into article These two people seem to work together on a lot of projects. I looked up Robert Muise and he might be notable. If he is, an article should be created for him. If not, these two seem to to be discussed in a lot of sources, like this one [1] and therefore be kept because yes, Muise and Yerushalmi are very relevant to one another. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Maybe not notable himself, but mentioned at the target in the lede, and they do seem to be siamese twins. Si Trew (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore I'm not saying it was in great shape, but revert to the pre-redirect form and let this be judged by PROD or AfD as desired. --BDD (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Muise's "notability" appears to stem completely from his activities as an attorney with Thomas More Law Center, and more recently, with American Freedom Law Center (the law centers are more notable than the attorneys). Much of David Yerushalmi's notability is also related to AFLC. My suggestion is to take all of the "legal case" information involving both Muise & Yerushalmi and place it in the American Freedom Law Center article, along with a brief bio paragraph for each of them. Then redirect the Muise and Yerushalmi pages to the AFLC page. The Thomas More Law Center article already exists, and already mentions Muise where appropriate. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kate's tool[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Delete per WP:RFD#D6 and WP:CNR#Arguments for deleting CNRs. This was kept back in 2007, but since Kate's tool is no longer functional I think the harm outweighs the good in keeping this. Tavix| Talk  19:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete XNR to a tool that is no longer Kate's Tool and is pipework content anyways, unsuitable for reader content. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. So, when I bought at an auction sale that Kate's stool was what Kate Bush used to sit and scream her songs from, I was misled? Si Trew (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

MakeMKV[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was procedural close, already deleted by MelanieN (talk · contribs). Deryck C. 10:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MakeMKV is software that can be used to transcode video to the Matroska file format. It is in no way the same thing as the format, so the redirect here makes no sense. Keeping the redirect may discourage others from creating the page. — SkyLined (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SkyLined: You're right. I'm fine with you going ahead and deleting the redirect. AKA Casey RollinsTalk with Casey 18:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:—[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An em dash which produces an em dash. This redirect is actually used 33 times. Alakzi (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep viable search term to figure out the name of the template that produces emdashes. Though it shouldn't be used as a transclusion. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 05:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning towards keep per the IP. It does no harm and is arguably useful. It should always be substituted, though – is there some sort of bot that regularly checks and substitutes those type of templates? If so it should be added to that. Jenks24 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it could be added to AWB. @Magioladitis: Would that be possible? Alakzi (talk) 14:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This makes no sense. If a user can type em dash why use the extra brackets? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's say, you forget what the name of the emdash template is, so you type in "template:—" to figure out, so that when you are out and about, and on a different system, you can still contribute with emdashes when you can't type the emdash in, since you then know the name of the template. (such as when you're on a trip, and using a business center) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's say you don't know the difference between an en or em dash and a hyphen. MOS:DASH and MOS:HYPHEN will advise, although the Wikipedia style of them is not how I do it elsewhwere with other style guides: presumably it got WP:CONSENSUS. Delete this as confusing sine it does not go to an em dash but to two consecutive hyphens. The target is bad enough, we don't need to make it worse.
Now I don't know how to type an em dash, even though I know what one is, so I write —. MOS:DASH gives instructions for when to use an en or em, but nobody seems to follow them (in particular the breaking or non-breaking spaces before or after). This is why we have things like {{birth date and age}} to take care of it for us so we don't have to worry if we got it wrong: and even if we did, all would be changed automatically when MoS changes its mind (as it frequently does). Si Trew (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 70.51. This is useful as a search term to help figure out what this template is called, because it's not obvious that it is --. A copy and paste of an em-dash could be used to do that. I agree that there shouldn't be any transclusions though. -- Tavix (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{Em dash}}, {{Em-dash}}, {{Emdash}}, {{Mdash}} and {{--}} all produce an em dash. Are there people who use em dashes who don't know what they're called? Alakzi (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Definitely. From personal experience, I've used em-dashes before I knew what they were called. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's also people who use "Alright" when it is not in any dictionary I know of. (Should be, on the model of "almost", "almighty", and so on, but isn't. Oxford and Webster have articles about it.) Si Trew (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've never given the pet peeves of philologists and linguistic dilettantes much thought. Alakzi (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well we are not a dictionary: but surely our job here partly is to separate the wheat from the chaff, and make sure we only keep the chaff. Si Trew (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd use the proper form in an article. Alakzi (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alakzi: This is a much better title, but shouldn't we be consistent? The template for an en dash is at Template:Ndash. We should choose one style or the other. -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the heads up. You're one step ahead of me again. -- Tavix (talk) 21:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, I'm OK with keeping it too. Alakzi (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Albert Pooholes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 23#Albert Pooholes

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_16&oldid=1138580336"